4.5 Article

Income inequality is associated with heightened test anxiety and lower academic achievement: A cross-national study in 51 countries

期刊

LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101825

关键词

Income inequality; Academic achievement; Test anxiety; School anxiety; Cross -national

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that students in countries with higher income inequality experience greater test anxiety and have lower academic achievement. Test anxiety is also associated with lower achievement in reading, math, and science. However, income inequality does not directly mediate the relationship between test anxiety and achievement.
Background: Research on predictors of test anxiety has focused primarily on the role of psychological factors and the proximal environment. However, the role of the broader socio-ecological context, specifically, national income inequality, is seldom explored. Aims: The present study aimed to test whether national income inequality is associated with greater test anxiety and whether test anxiety is associated with lower academic achievement. Data: We analyzed data from the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), drawing on responses from 389,215 students nested in 51 countries. Methods: Multi-level structural equation modeling was used. Results: Results indicated that students in more unequal countries experienced greater test anxiety and had lower levels of achievement. Test anxiety, in turn, was associated with lower academic achievement in reading, math, and science. However, test anxiety did not mediate the effects of income inequality on achievement nor did income inequality moderate the relationship between test anxiety and achievement. Conclusion: Taken together, the results of this study demonstrate the importance of taking socio-ecological factors such as income inequality into account when examining anxiety and achievement in academic settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据